The application of business principles to the
world of civil society and social change has fashion, wealth, power and
celebrity behind it. But where is the evidence that
"philanthrocapitalism" works, and are there better ways to achieve
urgently needed global social progress?

In thinking about this question, I found the
arguments that Michael Edwards makes in his openDemocracy article "Philanthrocapitalism: after the
goldrush" (19 March 2008) to be strong and
persuasive. They echo growing concerns
that I have had about the direction philanthropy is taking in the United States.

The "new venture philanthropy' or
"capitalist philanthropy" should be seen as part of the pattern that saw a
triumphant western capitalism choosing to assume its undisputed place as
"number one" in the world after the fall of the Soviet Union and the
demise of socialism or communism as a feasible alternative economic system.
Despite many good intentions, this version of philanthropy is all too often
beset by a hubristic assumption of its ability to resolve the world's most
deep-rooted problems.

In this it becomes enmeshed in two
contradictions. The first is that the more unequal and unfair the world gets,
the more its people are being invited to celebrate a cherished few who both
embody and benefit from this condition - and who have chosen to use some of
their almost unfathomable wealth to address "specific" problems with
"measurable" outcomes. This reveals that something is missing in
their efforts, as in much of the discussion of the new mega-philanthropy:
namely, any deeper questioning about what ails a global economic system that
produces endemic inequality, crushing poverty, and food insecurity - all of
which damage the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. The new
philanthropy avoids exploring what is wrong at this systemic level - where a
single individual's net worth can become larger than the combined GDPs of some
of the world's poorest nations.

The second contradiction is that even as the
downsides of so-called "development" in the global north become ever
clearer (among them unsustainable consumption patterns and lifestyle-related
health problems), philanthrocapitalism seeks to bring the wonders of this model
of development to those who have no access to it. But as societies and people
around the world become more interdependent - a fact that global climate change
above all is making clear - it is ever more necessary to question the
assumptions that underlie this view that "we" know what is best for "you".

The
wrong fix

It is vital to examine the actual effects of
this form of "development". As Vandana Shiva has written: "Development deprives the
very people it professes to help of their traditional land and means of
sustenance, forcing them to survive in an increasingly eroded natural
world. The reality is that people do not
die for lack of income. They die for
lack of access to the wealth of the commons."

Some striking examples internationally
include:

* the combination of "free-market"
policies and the removal of government subsidies is putting intense pressure on
Indian small farmers and peasants, causing them to lose the equivalent of $26
billion dollars annually, and leading to over 5,000 farmer suicides in 2007 alone

* water, an essential resource for life, is
now a $400-billion dollar industry controlled mainly by western corporations,
who now profit by selling a resource to the poor that was once free

* the approximately $50 billion dollars of
"aid" (including private philanthropy) trickling from global north to
global south is but a tenth of the $500 billion dollars being sucked out of the global south each year in the
form of interest payments on loans and other unjust mechanisms imposed by
international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the IMF

These realities notwithstanding, there is
little if any evidence that "philanthrocapitalism" is interested in
looking at such structural realities, or examining the root causes of current
economic or political inequality and injustice.
On some level, it might be absurd to expect it to do so. Indeed, many
activists and economic analysts - including Nobel laureates Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz - argue that the developing world's most
pressing problems could be effectively solved by changing the terms of
political and economic power within the current system. Again, Vandana Shiva
makes a valid point, that "it may not be about how much wealthy nations
and individuals can give, so much as how much less they can take."

The new philanthropy is nowhere near asking
this question. It seems motivated by technological solutions, the same
"fix-the-problem" mentality that allowed these business people to
succeed as hedge-fund managers, capital- market investors, or
software-developers. This "philanthropy"
is designed to yield measurable and fairly quick solutions. A symptom of this
may be found in the kind of skills that new foundations are seeking. I am
struck by how few social scientists are employed at the new
"mega-philanthropies". Instead, the people required are management
consultants, business people, and scientists, who must demonstrate their
"expertise" on specific issues - climate change, agricultural
productivity, soil quality, or infectious disease. The nuance and inherent
humility of the social sciences - willing to be perplexed and to struggle with
multifaceted aspects of a problem - has no cachet in the realms of
"technocracy".

The
seeds of change

Even the complex issue of "gender"
has been neatly broken down into specifics - ending maternal mortality,
educating girls, increasing the incomes of women. On the board of the Global Fund for Women
(GWF), activists from around the world have become wary of the term
"invest in women", because they see the language of economic profit
appropriating a much richer and multihued landscape relating to women's status
and position in their families and communities.

The GWF and similar organisations have worked
for years to explain that women's rights live in the murky and unclear
intersections between economic inequalities, discriminatory traditional and
cultural practices, political and personal lack of power, and violence - in the
home, in intimate relationships, and on the streets and battlefields. For this
reason, the Global Fund for Women has sought to support women's own
articulations of their struggle for justice and equality by working at various
levels and within all the structures where women and girls are systematically
disempowered. Yet, as we seek to raise funds from new sources, we find
ourselves struggling for ways to "sell" our model - even as we hope it can
become one that the philanthrocapitalists will emulate!

Many of us working in this field are
increasingly concerned by our instinctive tendency to "follow the
money". Yet, as Michael Edwards correctly points out, those of us who have
been social-justice advocates and activists before we became "professional
non-profit leaders" know all too well that it is social movements and
their ability to hold both governments and the private sector accountable, that
are truly going to change our world (Colin Greer of the New World Foundation
echoes this argument in his own article, "Philanthropy as solidarity" [21 April 2008]). So, even as we seek to
figure out how to raise next year's budget and which new foundations we will
pursue, we simultaneously fill our strategic plans with pledges and commitments
to be engaged in movement-building.

A
new dialogue

This means a permanent effort to engage in
shared debate and discussion and learning, while struggling with the wisdom
contained in Audrey Lorde's words: "you cannot use the master's tools to
dismantle the master's house". What I would like to see is a new
cross-sector partnership emerging, connecting those of us who work in
philanthropy with those in the social-benefit sector, in the private sector,
and in government. Such a partnership would need to begin with a shared sense
that the tools we have been using are simply not enough; and then to
demonstrate a collective willingness to unpack what in our efforts has and has
not worked under the rubric of "globalisation" and "economic growth" over the
past twenty years.

In this effort, the new philanthropists could
benefit from listening to and learning from those on the ground who are working
in some of the most exciting social-justice movements around the globe. The
proposition that business does not, after all, have all the answers, and that
the social-benefit sector, particularly people's movements, have much knowledge
and substance to share, would be an excellent starting-point for a dialogue
(Karen Weisblatt's article, "Individual giving, collective
action" [23 April 2008],
would also be on the reading-list). From there, we can begin also to re-engage
the state and governments, in a conversation based on mutual respect and a
genuine willingness to learn from one another.

Naïve? Optimistic? Perhaps, but I suspect it
may the only real choice we have left to ensure our shared future as citizens
of the earth.